Pages

Friday, 12 October 2012

Today 112 years ago, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, one of the most influential British New Testament scholars of the 20th century was born in Scotland. As a small tribute, I thought I will share two little excerpts of Tim Grass' biography of Bruce's life and academic work, published in 2011. Two specific sections caught my eye as I glanced over a few sections tonight. The first is the occasion of his presidential address, after being elected president of the SNTS in 1975 (with interesting comments about Ernst Käsemann's body language!); and the second, the lack of tension he experienced between his academic study of the Bible and his approach to the Bible in personal or church life:

"... in 1975 he became president of the SNTS ... His presidential address, delivered at Aberdeen, was on the subject of 'The New Testament and Classical Studies'. In it he contended that the classicists were uniquely placed to study the New Testament because it was part of the cultural world which was their field and because the skills required to do so were those which they used in studying ancient writings. As a test case he took the writings of Luke, and especially the book of Acts, arguing controversially for the essential historicity of the speeches recorded in it. His conclusion was that 'the Graeco-Roman contribution to early Christianity should not be depreciated as though it were an alien accretion upon the pure gospel' ... Bruce was probably well aware that his emphasis on the importance of the classical background and his attempt to achieve objectivity in his handling of the text would run counter to the more conceptually orientated and philosophically committed approach of many continental scholars, and that his lay status would not be approved of by some clerical scholars present, but his lecture was the best (his close friend Ward) Gasque had ever heard him give, 'bearing witness to his convictions as a scholar and as a disciple'. Ernst Käsemann, a distinguished if sometimes combative German scholar, was seen to grow redder as the lecture progressed, but it may be a mark of his respect for Bruce that he does not appear to have entered into debate with him at the conference" (p. 115).

The lack of tension between academic and church life
"The Christian acceptance of the Bible as God's word written does not in the least inhibit the unfettered study of its contents and setting; on the contrary, it acts as an incentive to their most detailed and comprehensive investigation" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, "Matter of Call" (letter), Christianity Today, 26 March 1965, p. 38]).

"I am sometimes asked if I am aware of a tension between my academic study of the Bible and my approach to the Bible in personal or church life. I am bound to say that I am aware of no such tension ... Naturally, when I discharge a teaching ministry in church I avoid the technicalities of academic discourse and I apply the message of Scripture in a more practical way. But there is no conflict between my critical or exegetical activity in a university context and my Bible exposition in church; the former makes a substantial contribution to the latter. At the same time, membership in a local church, involvement in the activities of a worshipping community, helps the academic theologian to remember what his subject is all about, and keeps his studies properly 'earthed'" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past (London: Marshall Pickering, rev. edn, 1993)]).

* This pdf is a related lecture delivered at the John Rylands University Library with the title: "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?".

Monday, 17 September 2012

I will never forget that rainy afternoon in Durham, England, when I, together with Nijay Gupta and two other students helped clear Prof James Dunn's loft. Prof Dunn needed a few students to help him remove the boxes stored in his loft, as he was preparing to sell his house and relocate to the south of England where his daughter lives. After we finished clearing the loft of all the dusty boxes, we had a nice cup of coffee in the kitchen, each having the chance to ask Prof Dunn a few questions. One of my questions went something like this: "Professor Dunn, which of the books you have written, do you regard as the most controversial?" Prof Dunn's answer? Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, first published in 1980. I agreed with him, in part, because I analysed parts of his book for an essay on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul's letters for one of the modules for my MTh at the University of Pretoria. Agree or disagree, anyone working on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul, has to engage with Dunn's book.

With this in mind, I was delighted to see Chris Tilling's 2012 WUNT monograph: Paul's Divine Christology arriving here at Tyndale House this morning. Tilling dialogues extensively with the big names when it comes to Pauline Christology. They include the likes of Bauckham, Dunn, Fee, Garland, Harris, Hurtado, Martin, Schnabel, Schrage, Thiselton, Thrall, Waaler and Wright.

Here are a few bits and pieces of Dunn's interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11 compared with Tilling, as well as a short excerpt of the latter's findings to wet your appetite:

Dunn: "It may ... be that the pre-existence-incarnation interpretation of Phil. 2.6-11 etc. owes more to the Gnostic redeemer myth than it does to Phil. 2.6-11 properly understood as an expression of first generation Adam christology - one way of outbidding and countering the appeal of the Gnostic systems. How much truth is contained in the last comment is hard to discern. What we can say with more confidence is that the reading of these passages with the presupposition of a pre-existent heavenly redeemer resulted in a critical shift in Adam christology - a shift from christology of death and resurrection to a christology of incarnation - and not only in christology, but also in the concept of redemption which goes with it ... it is certainly arguable that all these subsequent developments are the consequence in part at least of losing sight of the original meaning and intention of the Adam christology" (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [SCM Press: London, 1989 2nd ed.], p. 128).

Tilling: "... if the passage [Phil. 2.6-11] was used as a hymn in the corporate worship of the early church ... then the singing of this 'hymn' about Christ would have constituted a feature of the 'corporate devotional practise of early Christians'. Dunn's rejoinder that the 'hymn' is 'not addressed to Christ, but gives[s] praise to God for Christ' would be more realistic if the biblical Psalms were always addressed to God and did not sing about God, which is, of course, regularly not the case. Besides, it is far from obvious that Philippians 2:10-11 must be addressed only to God, not Christ, especially as it is at the name of Jesus that every knee bends" (p. 127).

Excerpt of Tilling's findings: "... Pauline Christ-relation is a divine-Christology expressed as relationship. In light of this way of constructing and contending for a Pauline divine-Christology, the claims of Dunn, Casey and others who deny a Pauline divine-Christology were critically examined, and it was maintained that none of the arguments hitherto employed can carry weight. For example ... Dunn's notion that Paul's 'christological reserve' only slipped into high Christology occasionally, are seen to crumble under the weight of data concerning the Pauline Christ-relation, Paul's divine-Christology. This way of dealing with the data in terms of the divine-Christology debate arguably has certain strenghts. To name a few: not only does it build on undeveloped lines of thought in Fee's work, but it constructively engages with the Christ-devotion emphasis in Hurtado, and the relational notion of identity in Bauckham" (p. 256).

Monday, 10 September 2012

Over the past few years I've had the privilege of giving a few papers at German universities and having interesting discussions with German biblical scholars. I was recently struck after reading some of FF Bruce's thoughts concerning doctorate programs in Germany.

Tim Grass, in his 2011 "definitive biography" of Bruce states that the latter expressed a degree of wariness, even skepticism concerning German research doctorates. Apparently, in 1944, Bruce argued that German critical radicalism was due not to the national character in Germany, but to the doctoral dissertation system:

"As, generation after generation, German students submit dissertations for the doctorate of their faculty, they have the choice of confirming old views or presenting new ones. Naturally, more 'kudos' attaches to the publication of a new theory than to the re-establishment of an old one, and the most brilliant and ambitious students seek to put forth 'some new thing.' In some faculties the results of this tendency are wholly beneficial, but in such subjects as classical literature or biblical theology this is not always so. The number of probable hypotheses in these realms is limited, and these have long ago been exhausted, the chances are that improbable hypotheses will multiply" (p. 106).

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

"The whole existence of the early church was based on the belief that Jesus was no longer dead, but was alive and active through the work of the Spirit in the lives of his followers", writes John Drane in the 3rd edition of his very popular New Testament Introduction, which arrived here at Tyndale House, Cambridge this week.

But what exactly caused this "resurrection faith"? Apart from the claim that Jesus' actual physical body rose from the tomb, Drane discusses and critiques three alternative explanations. Here are a few bits and pieces:

1) The "resurrection fact" was a subjective experience

Drane: "The disciples ... were prepared to stake their lives on the fact that Jesus was alive. Many of them were brutally murdered for their faith, including Peter and other members of Jesus' inner circle, who would be prime suspects for having removed the body. It is highly improbable, if not impossible, to imagine that they would willingly have suffered in this way if all the time they knew where they themselves had hidden his corpse".

2. The "resurrection fact" was a theological creation

Drane: "There is no evidence from any source at all to suggest that the Messiah was to die, let alone rise from the dead. On the contrary, the Messiah was popularly expected to kill other people, and if he suffered and died himself, then by definition he was not going to be the real Messiah".

3. The "resurrection fact" was a later belief

Drane: "... there are the statements made by Paul in 1 Corinthians, written at least ten years before AD 66. By that time, one gospel had certainly been written, and furthermore, the gospel accounts were undoubtedly based on stories that went right back into the earliest days of the church. It makes no sense at all to suppose that belief in the resurrection was a late development".

Drane concludes the discussion saying that many other fanciful suggestions have been made from time to time to account for the "resurrection fact". "But", says Drane, "the overwhelming weight of all the evidence suggests that, however it might be described in cognitive abstractions, the 'resurrection fact' was a real, historically-located event. No other hypothesis gives an adequate account of so much of the evidence".

Revd Dr David Wenham, Vice-Principal and Tutor in New Testament, Trinity College, Bristol, has this to say on the back of the book: "This book has arguably been the most useful non-technical introduction to the New Testament available... A best buy for the student or lay person wanting a readable and reliable first handbook on the New Testament".

I was delighted to find a reference to Mark S. Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem at the resources section at the back of the book. Hopefully we can put the alleged plagiarism issue raised by Goodacre behind us. Peter Head, Sir Kirby Laing Senior lecturer in New Testament from Cambridge's response to the issue on Goodacre's blog might help in this regard....

Friday, 31 August 2012

Remember the days when some Bible critics claimed with almost absolute certainty that the titles of the gospels (e.g. "Gospel according to Matthew") were added very much later by the institutional church?Novum Testamentum, one of the leading international journals devoted to the study of the New Testament, has just published an article by Simon Gathercole, Senior lecturer in New Testament at Cambridge University, with the title: "The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew's Gospel (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 / P4)".

I suppose it is an under statement to say that New Testament textual critics will / should study it very carefully.

Abstract

The flyleaf bearing the title of Matthew's gospel, found with the Luke fragments of P4 (henceforth P4), has been neglected in studies of P4 as well as in the Greek New Testament. This article publishes for the first time a photograph of the flyleaf, and seeks to provide an accurate transcription of the often misspelled title. It also discusses the various factors impinging upon the date of the fragment, such as the Philo codex in which it was found and the apostrophe in the middle of Matthew's name. A date in the late second or early third century makes best sense of the evidence, making this neglected flyleaf the earliest manuscript title of Matthew's gospel.

Friday, 24 August 2012

There are two ways in which one can take Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Meaning of the New Testament, says Cambridge's James Carlton Paget:

"(A)t one level it is about the reception of the idea of the resurrection in early Christian history, arguing a distinctive case, systematically and clearly. At another level ... it is a book about Marcion's apparently huge influence on the developing Christian church. The first argument is in a sense a supporting cog in the second, more significant one, which is built upon additional observations and so could survive without the former, even if that is not the way Vinzent seeks to present his case - for him the presence, disappearance and re-emergence of a resurrection-based soteriology can only be explained by reference to Marcion's growing influence" (my emphasis).

I was delighted to read Paget's twenty seven page review of Vinzent's book this morning in the latest edition of the JSNT (35) 1, pp 76-102. This was so, partly because I sat next to Paget a few months ago while he and Judith Lieu discussed the book at Cambridge's Senior New Testament Seminar (with the likes of Simon Gathercole, Richard Bauckham, Peter Head etc making contributions), but also, because I found corroboration on important points between his article and my review which I did for Theology (115 [2], 123-124).

Obviously aware of copy write regulations, I thought it worthwhile to quote just a few bits and pieces from Paget's article that might hopefully lead to further clarifications, and maybe fruitful discussions. I interpret as I go along, and please remember, it is only a foretaste of Paget's extensive review!

Dating New Testament and other texts

The specific dating of New Testament and Patristic texts is very important for Vinzent's hypothesis to work. Texts like 1 Peter, Acts as well as Ignatius and Papias' writings, in which the resurrection is quite significant must be dated after Macion. If not, then Vinzent's hypothesis becomes unpersuasive. Paget writes:

"... it should be recognised that Vinzent's dating of these texts is controversial, and his case, to some extent, is dependent upon such datings - it will make a difference to Vinzent's case, for instance, if we hold Ignatius, contrary to his view, to be a pre-Marcionite writer, or Papias to have written in the earlier part of the second century ... The first would imply ... that the resurrection was a more important concept than Vinzent assumes it was, and Paul a possibly more significant source; and the second would obviously overturn Vinzent's view that Gospel texts associated with individual names did not exist before Marcion ... Vinzent's case is, in principle, as precarious as the one against which he might be thought to be battling. Indeed, without wishing to sound censorious, it is a problem with this book that too often the author does not show how controversial his views are and, consequently, does not give sufficient airing to the reasoning of those who would contradict his own reading of a text or another piece of evidence, at least in sufficiently full footnotes" (my emphasis). The latter was more or less what I also tried to underscore in my review.

Does Vinzent follow the textual evidence, or does he read his hypothesis into texts?

Put more precisely, is Vinzent reading his "pre-conceived Marcionite" ideas into texts, or are the texts themselves supplying convincing evidence for Vinzent's overall ideas? Paget writes:

"All theories are provisional and dependent upon a possibly narrow and unrepresentative set of texts. Such an observation is especially important when dealing with Vinzent's volume because he relies so heavily upon arguments from silence to prove a variety of points" (my emphasis). Is this in fact the case? Is Vinzent making use of circular arguments? On both accounts, Paget thinks that he does:

"... Vinzent's analysis of texts leads him to the view that Marcion is a key to understanding the development of the church in the middle to the later second century, and on the basis of that assumption he sets about reading texts. What I mean is that it is often precisely the assumption of the Marcionite centrality which guides the reading of sources".

But Paget is also cautious, adding: "I am not claiming that Vinzent has a mono-Marcionite view of the latter part of the second century, or that he reads texts exclusively as reactive", but, and crucially in my opinion, Paget argues that Vinzent's "... assumptions are key to the way he proceeds, and the risks of proceeding in such a way need to be considered in any assessment of his work" (my emphasis).

Paget then goes on to discuss in more detail several texts to illustrate his claims. This include discussions about Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Samaritan Christianity etc. It is worthwhile to compare Paget and Vinzent's different interpretations! I was quite relieved to see that at least some of the concerns I raised about Vinzent's interpretations of 1 Peter, 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas in my review, is shared by Paget!

One central claim that Vinzent makes, is that after Marcion, there was a "resurrection-mania" in response to him reviving the doctrine. Is this claim persuasive? For a start, Paget shows that Vinzent's reference to Reinhart Staat as support for his hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, counter to Vinzent, Paget states that "Staat is clear that that is not the case, even as we move into the third and fourth centuries and he spends some time explaining why this was so". By referring to the likes of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch etc (mentioning significant issues overlooked by Vinzent), Paget suggests that it might be better to speak of an "increased and intense interest in the resurrection of the dead rather than Christ's resurrection, and that such a concern emerged for a variety of reasons" (my emphasis). For the latter, Paget refers to an old but very useful account of the subject by the well-known Dutch scholar from Utrecht, W.C. van Unnik (JEH 15:141-67).

Related to Vinzent's theory of a post-Marcion "resurrection-mania", is whether the resurrection becomes a theme in the second century primarily because of Marcion? Paget disagrees with Vinzent pointing out that there are in fact a number of texts that could be taken to demonstrate an interest in the resurrection, that do not mention Marcion, such as the Epistula Apostolorum,Kerygma Petrou and certain Gnostic texts.

The Priority of Marcion's Gospel

I found Paget's critique of Vinzent' interpretation of Marcion's Gospel very persuasive, in part because of my own analysis of Tertullian's engagement with Marcion in my Durham dissertation. Probably the most devastating critique of Vinzent's theory that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel is discussed in footnote 47:

"... Vinzent bases his view that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel in part upon Tertullian ... where he asserts that Tertullian 'admits that Marcion accused 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified his Gospel to make it fit to be combined with what Marcion regarded as the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets', going on to argue that Tertullian proceeds to invent Marcion's argument by claiming that he had found a Gospel which he had mutilated".

To this claim Paget responds that however one might assess this passage's reliability, Tertullian

"never asserts that Marcion claimed the thesis Vinzent is arguing. In fact, the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel. This is made plain in Evans's translation, which Vinzent quotes, but leaving out certain bits ... Given that Vinzent bases a lot on this passage ... his misreading of it is significant".

In Paget's conclusion, apart from a few nuanced observations, he asks the question: "But was Vinzent right?" His answer:

"I have tried to show that there are grounds for thinking that his revisionist views are based upon highly contentious conclusions, whose disputed character is dealt with in a sometimes misleading sweeping manner, and are dependent upon questionable methodological assumptions and procedures ... Few, I imagine, will be persuaded by this book ...".

I want to reiterate that the above reflect only a few bits and pieces, highlighting some striking disagreements that Paget has with Vinzent's main ideas. There are much more meat to the bones and also several nuanced discussions in Paget's article. It is certainly worthwhile for those interested in resurrection in the second century to analyse Paget's article as well as Vinzent's book in more detail. Other reviews already published include M. Edwards, Church Times 2.12.2011; L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012 and F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124.

Saturday, 11 August 2012

Recently, an Oxford
friend contacted me with the following request: “... do you know off-hand
where to find Bultmann’s quote about how Jesus rose only in the faith (or
preaching) of the disciples? I’m having a heck of a time tracking it down!”

Because my PhD is all
about the resurrection, I was able to get the quote right away for my
friend. As I read Bultmann’s famous paragraph once again (probably for the
tenth time since 2006), it made me think back very fondly of the interactions
between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann between 1922-1966 which I analysed to
some degree while studying in Durham, UK in 2008/9.

What struck me in
particular this time around, was how the later Barth reacted
against Bultmann’s demythologizing programme as well as his existential reading
of Scripture in his famous article: “Rudolf Bultmann – An Attempt to
Understand Him”. This parting of the ways between them, can be observed by
their respective views about the resurrection. I quote snippets from Bultmann
first and then from Barth’s reaction.

Bultmann:

“Christ meats us in
the preaching as one crucified and risen. He meets us in the word of preaching
and nowhere else. The faith of Easter is just this – faith in the word of
preaching ... The word of preaching confronts us as the word of God. It is not
for us to question its credentials ... Faith and unbelief are never blind,
arbitrary decisions. They offer us the alternative between accepting or
rejecting that which alone can illuminate our understanding of ourselves ... If
the event of Easter Day is in any sense an historical event additional to the
event of the cross, it is nothing else than the rise of faith in the risen
Lord, since it was this faith which led to the apostolic preaching. The
resurrection itself is not an event of past history. All that historical
criticism can establish is the fact that the first disciples came to believe in
the resurrection ... But the historical problem is not of interest to Christian
belief in the resurrection. For the historical event of the rise of the Easter
faith mean for us what it meant for the first disciples – namely, the
self-attestation of the risen Lord, the act of God in which the redemptive
event of the cross is completed ... Through the word of preaching the cross and
the resurrection are made present: the eschatological “now” is here, and the
promise of Isa. 49. 8 is fulfilled ...” (Rudolf Bultmann, The New Testament and Mythology,
[ed.], Hans-Werner Bartsch, [trans.], Reginald H. Fuller, Kerygma and Myth. A Theological Debate, Vol. 1 [London: SPCK, 1972]),
41-43.

Barth:

“Surely,if we want
to understand any given text, the provisional clue to its understanding must be
sought from the text itself, and moreover from its spirit, content and aim.
Surely we should be condemning our text to silence in advance if we approached
it with such a criterion, alien alike to its spirit, content and aim. How can
we decide even before we have read the text what it actually says, and what is
only temporary imagery?.. Is not Bultmann’s very concept of myth, the
infallible criterion which dominates his hermeneutics, quite alien to the New
Testament?” (Karl Barth, “Rudolf Bultmann – An Attempt to Understand Him”,
in Kerygma and Myth. A Theological Debate [ed.] by Hans-Werner
Bartsch, [trans.] by Reginald H. Fuller [London: SPCK, 1972]), 108.

Barth:

“Is the
demythologized kerygma allowed to say anything about God’s having condescended
to become this-worldly, objective and – horror of horrors! – datable?
Apparently [for Bultmann] it is not allowed ... Nor can it admit that it
originated in the concrete fact that the disciples saw with their own eyes,
heard with their ears, touched with their hands, in space and time, not only
the dereliction of the Word made flesh hanging on the cross, but also as the
glory of the same Word made flesh risen from the dead ... Apparently the
demythologized kerygma must remain silent about what caused faith ...
Apparently the kerygma must suppress or even deny the fact that the cross and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, the total Christ event, is the event of our
redemption, that it possessed an intrinsic significance of its own, and that
only because it has that primary significance has it a derived significance
here and now. Yet this event is the ground of our faith and of the kerygma, and
faith and kerygma are only secondary to it and derivative from it” (Ibid., 109-10).

Over the past few years,
I’ve been struck by how often some biblical scholars forget that there was an early and
a later Barth. It seems that Barth’s later exegesis did become
more historical compared to i.e. his Romans commentary. Did he go far enough though?
Scholars remain divided on that.

Friday, 3 August 2012

It is probably fair to say that Prof Gerd Luedemann from Gottingen is currently the most controversial New Testament biblical scholar in Europe. He is famous for many things (i.e. being a member of the American Jesus Seminar with the likes of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg), but the two issues he is best known for is without a doubt his i) 1994 monograph in which he rejected the testimony of the empty tomb in the canonical gospels as unhistorical, arguing that Peter and Paul had hallucinations of the risen Jesus; and ii) his 1999 "Letter to Jesus" in which he kissed Christianity goodbye.

Interview
I was privileged to have an interview with Prof Luedemann (and his wife!) while attending a major conference on the resurrection in Europe. Believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for the available testimony, it might seem strange to some that the discussion we had was highly significant to me. Why was it significant? Luedemann is quite outspoken about his personal journey, the people who influenced him, those he disagrees with, and what he thinks of "liberal churches". Make sure to read his reflections on Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann, Rudolf Bultmann, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg! I hope to publish an article on the life and scholarship of Prof Luedemann at some stage. I will therefore only mention a few excerpts from our discussion. Please keep two things in mind while reading: i) Professor Luedemann is German, which may account for the sentence structure of some responses; ii) What is reported here cannot and should not be interpreted in isolation from Prof Luedemann's published work.

Mulder: Prof Luedemann, you used to believe in the resurrection, but that changed. Which books and professors had a major impact on your new interpretations?

Luedemann: For my first New Testament course seminar, I had Hans Conzelman as teacher, with Andreas Lindemann [picture right] as his assistant ... I found their exegesis very convincing ... it was like a philosophical presupposition which I liked, for I was memorising Voltaire in French [at the time]. And then I remember I had my doubts. And then I remember I talked to Lindemann about this [Jesus' resurrection], and he said it did not happen. So what do you do? I can still "see" him [Lindemann], he was only three years older than me. He said whenever he is preaching the gospel, or whenever the gospel is preached, nothing is present from the past. So you don't worry about history. It's there in the act of preaching.

Mulder: In the kerygma [preaching] like Bultmann?

Luedemann: Yes, he was a Bultmann student. I was never convinced by that. The moment the preacher preaches, the Word of God is there. I think you need some foundation there, not only faith. So that is what Lindemann told me. I was not convinced.

Mulder: I was fascinated after reading your work, and also AJM Wedderburn, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan.

Luedemann: Borg and Crossan are invited to speak to Christians, and they get high honorariums.

Mulder: Borg especially?

Luedemann: O yes. And I don't know how they can do it ... when we come to discussing things, then I come to realise that they're not really believers. They're just fooling around.

Mulder: Are they therefore being unethical? That could be the implication?

Luedemann: Well, the churches probably expect them to be like that.

Mulder: But the church also know that they're not really honest?

Luedemann: Well, liberal churches are like that. Maybe it is self deception. But look who is going there? They despise evangelicals ... [those] churches want these people with the double talk. They need it.

Mulder: So tell us what happened between 1994 and 1999. In your 1994 book you put forward the view that Jesus' body decomposed in a tomb and that Peter and Paul experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus. In the same work you maintained that one can remain a Christian despite this. You based this insight on your appreciation for the Marburg systematics theologian Wilhelm Herrmann [picture left] who separated faith and history from each other [Herrmann was Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth's dogmatics professor]. And then in 1999 in your "Letter to Jesus", you famously said you cannot be a Christian any longer. So please tell us more about your five year existential experience of being a Christian [between 1994 and 1999], and how it eventually panned out.

Luedemann: Well, in 1994 the quotation from Herrmann was from a book in which he says that we can live with the little we really believe and not with the much that we have to believe ... I had these ideas. I was however never able to make a system of it, because I did not believe it.

Mulder: So why did you say it then? Why did you say "yes" for Christianity in 1994 despite your historical findings?

Luedemann: Look, I was a professor in Theology. There had to be a synthesis.

Mulder: So you pretended?

Luedemann: No. You end up with that [synthesis]. The only thing I enjoyed in that book was the things I said about DF Strauss that the tomb is full. And I learnt that from Conzelman. I visited him a lot.

Mulder: Did Conzelman say that in public?

Luedemann: In private.

Mulder: So Conzelman in private said the tomb was not empty, but in his academic and public work he would not say that?

Luedemann: Or he was undecided. You see, I had a good relationship with Conzelman. He died in 1989. He was sick for three years. I went to him once a week, and asked him all sorts of questions. He talked to me about Martin Hengel from Tuebigen. He would say to Hengel: "The grave is full!".

Mulder: Conzelman would say that to Hengel?

Luedemann: He would say that to him. And I immediately said he is right about that.

Mulder: So when did you lose your faith?

Luedemann: I probably never had faith.

Later on we had a very interesting discussion about Martin Hengel. Surprisingly, Luedemann conceded that he has respect for Hengel's historical work, and that they communicated by email before his death. Hengel is relatively well known for arguing for the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus. What an extraordinary discussion we had!

Friday, 6 July 2012

I had the privilege of giving a paper at the Neutestamentliches
Seminar of the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät der Westfälischen
Wilhelms-Universität, Münster on July 4th. In my paper I focussed
on Willi Marxsen (former professor in Münster), N.T. Wright and the continued
quest to make sense of Paul’s view of the future resurrection body. There was a
lively discussion afterwards during which many interesting issues were raised. A
big thank you to Professor Hermut Löhr, Professor Dietrich-Alex Koch (from
Göttingen), Dr Sebastian Fuhrmann
and all the other attendees for the valuable advice, and also those challenging
questions raised by Prof Koch in particular! I had such fun engaging both Willi
Marxsen and N.T. Wright’s very different approaches to the study of Jesus’
resurrection.

Afterwards, some of us had a lovely dinner at a
traditional German restaurant. The discussion was, to say the least mind blowing!
We spoke about people like Martin Hengel, Adolf Schlatter, Rudolf Bultmann,
Karl Barth, Peter Stuhlmacher, Erich Gräßer, Walter Schmidtals, Klaus Berger to
name a few.

A few interesting reflections:

Which British biblical scholars’ works are read in
Germany? There are probably more but the only names I recall were that of C.K.
Barrett, James D.G. Dunn, John Barclay, Francis Watson and Simon Gathercole. I was quite surprised, but very thankful that The Pre-existent Son, Simon Gathercole’s important 2006 monograph is "recommended" reading in Münster!

I asked one of the scholars whether Rudolf Bultmann’s dominance started to fade in Germany, and if so, when? He replied that it did
fade and occurred in the 1970’s. We then spoke about the significance of Ernst Käsemann’s
“bomb shell” in 1962 when he rejected his doktorvater (Bultmann)’s exegesis in public...

But why did Bultmann’s insights fade? One person replied that it was because Bultmann’s existentialism, which he got
from Heidegger, took away the “surprise” of the biblical texts. The scholar went
on to say that he does make reference to Bultmann’s form criticism in his classes,
but only for its “heuristic value”. German scholarship has apparently moved “beyond”
Bultmann’s form criticism. These reflections on Bultmann (by German scholars!)
fascinated me tremendously, in part because a month or two ago, I read on
Facebook of a South African New Testament scholar who still requires his B.A. students
to read Bultmann’s History of the
Synoptic Tradition. With respect, one wonders whether South African scholars
will take note of the fact that some German scholars are recommending Simon Gathercole’s
The Pre-existent Son, a work that attempts
to deconstruct particular trajectories created by German form criticism.

As is fitting for a New
Testament PhD student, I did visit the Institut
für neutestamentliche Textforschung where I was pleasantly surprised to
find Dr Christian Askeland, a Coptic textual-criticism guru who did his PhD at
Cambridge, with Dr Peter William as his supervisor.

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

It is close to astonishing to witness the Renaissance in
the study of the life and work of Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938). But why is he so
significant? Why are people like James D.G. Dunn, Markus Bockmühl, Robert
Morgan and many others referring so positively to him? Apart from his 439
published pieces, and Kittel's first volume of theTheological Dictionary of the New
Testamentdedicated to him,
Schlatter has, in the words of Robert Yarbrough "staying power". Yarbrough
explains:

"Over thirty books by
Schlatter still in print (more than any other theologian of his era) attest to
the staying power of his scholarship. His
contribution was many-sided. He
was far ahead of his times in stressing the importance of Jewish backgrounds
for understanding Jesus and the early church, an insight vindicated by
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and championed in Schlatter’s train today by
the likes of Martin Hengel and Markus Bockmühl. His arguments for the validity of
theological concerns in critical exegesis, rejected by liberalism of the day,
retain importance and mark Schlatter as a forerunner to Barth. Yet unlike (at least the early) Barth,
Schlatter insisted on a Jesus of history, attested to by Scripture, as of equal
importance with the saving Christ of faith. Schlatter sided with Brunner in the
latter’s tiff with Barth over natural theology (although he rejected
neo-orthodoxy’s neo-Kantian doctrine of revelation); he feared that Bultmann’s
proposals set the stage for a slide toward atheism. In sum, Schlatter modelled an
independence of thought and fidelity of Christian faith that are still
suggestive in academy and church today. For those who understand Christian
faith not only in academic but also in pastoral terms, Schlatter’s contribution
may be gauged by the large number (and continuing heritage) of ministers and
students he encouraged. His
somewhat fiery free spirit still inspires, as well: Tübingen’s first woman
theological licentiate, Lydia Schmidt, pointed to Schlatter’s encouragement in
learning and belief. (Other
professors at the time fought against women’s presence in the
university.) Paul
Schneider, the first Christian minister to be martyred by the Nazis
(Buchenwald, 1939), experienced his conversion from liberal to historic
Christian convictions through interaction with Schlatter’s dogmatics, and in
Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s (1906-45) last working library the only other author so
richly represented and consulted was Luther. Schlatter’s example of rigor
in thought, creativity in formulation, courage in expression, and artlessness
in practical service amply justify the apparent renaissance in Schlatter
studies currently underway" (Robert Yarbrough, “Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) asein Lehrer der Kirche(a Teacher of the Church)”, Scripture Seminar,
April 2004).

I
am currently reading Adolf Schlatter'sThe
History of the Christ. The Foundation of New Testament Theology(Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1997),
translated by Andreas J. Körstenberger.

As I'm working my way through it, I
sense parallels with i.e. NT Wright'sJesus
and the Victory of God(Fortress
Press: Minneapolis, 1996), and also Paul Barnett'sFinding the Historical Christ(Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2003).

I really like the way in which
Schlatter takes serious the dominant liberal theories of his day and how he
deconstructs them. His chapter on the resurrection is a good example. Remarkably close to Edward Schillebeeckx's view, Schlatter describes one
theory for the Easter faith like this:

"The disciples entered the
Easter account in a mood oscillating between despair and hope, unable to give
up their faith in view of Jesus' earlier words and deeds, and unable to retain
it in view of his death; and from these waves of emotions visions emerged that
ended all doubt, experiences of high value for the disciples although they were
found merely in their own subjective realm" (377).

After describing at some length the
various narratives and resurrection reports, Schlatter states:

"If
the disciples had looked for the basis of their faith in Jesus to the internal
movements of their soul, the church would have turned into a gathering of
mystics who spent their time trying to produce within them the ecstatic
condition by which the Christ would become visible also to them. The idea,
however, that it was Christianity's calling to enhance its emotions to such a
degree that it would culminate in a vision of Jesus wherein the assurance of
salvation was rooted or completed is not interwoven with early Christian
history. The disciples always and solely, by a sober use of the idea of truth,
understood faith in such a way that what happened showed them what God was and
did, so that the objectiveness of an accomplished fact would present the basis
for their conviction and the goal for their will ... The Easter account did not
create the effort in the disciples to retreat into their inner lives and to
seek there the revelation of God that world history denied them. Conversely,
their lives rather received its basis and its power from the event that came to
them externally ... If the disciples' conviction of having seen Jesus once more
subsequent to his death was derived from visionary states of being, the
consequences of this process would have had to be revealed in the entire state
of piety. As a result, we would have received in the place of Christianity a
religion in which the individual elevated himself to God one way or
another" (379).

Monday, 7 May 2012

We had an engaging New Testament and Patristics joint seminar here in Cambridge on Tuesday (01/05/2012). Prof Judith Lieu and Dr James Carleton Paget lead the seminar with the title: 'Markus Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Ashgate, 2011): what does he argue and [why] does it matter?'

Both Prof Lieu and Dr Paget are commissioned to write review articles of the book for important journals. In the handout they made reference to three reviews already published. They are:

M. Edwars, Church Times 2.12.2011;

F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124;

L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012

Scholars who attended the seminar and took part in the Q & A afterwards included the likes of Prof Richard Bauckham, Prof Morna Hooker, Dr Peter Head, Dr Simon Gathercole and Dr Thomas Graumann to name a few.

I think it will be unfair to report on the contributions by Prof Lieu and Dr Paget given the commissioned review articles they are about to complete. What I will say though is that I was delighted that some of the concerns I raised in my Theology review was also raised by others during the Q & A afterwards....

For anyone interested in this particular work, I recommend reading it in conjunction with at least:

NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God pp. 451-528.Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness (the whole work).

• “Anyone who says the resurrection is a historical fact is advertising a willingness to believe in absolutely anything” – Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

Even in some parts of the Church of England, for example, a former Bishop of Durham could, in 2002 describe Christians who believe in a miraculous, divine and historical resurrection as actually believing in a “God who is at best a cultic idol and at worst the very devil”. (2)

It is assumed that faith in Jesus and his resurrection is based on the authority of a dogmatic interpretation of a book of scripture governed by quasi-magical rules independent of all criteria used in evaluating other historical texts. The Bible, argued by some individuals, is nothing more than the “anachronistic superstition of first century Christians”.(3)

You might be surprised to know that the Apostle Paul has a similar sceptical slogan in 1 Cor 15:32 which says: “If the dead do not rise, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die”. This quotation is probably a slogan Paul is quoting from philosophers of his time, Epicureans and others who said there’s nothing beyond death, so we can do whatever we like and however we want to.(4)

These kinds of slogans (Paul’s personal belief and experience excluded of course!) want to convey at least the following: You are probably a religious fanatic to believe that there is an after-life; that the universe has an ultimate purpose; and that Jesus really rose from the dead literally (cf Act 17:32).(5)

In my paper, I will first look at a few interesting life-stories of atheists, skeptics and biblical scholars who changed and believe today (on request). After this I will look at eight pieces of evidence that might help us to understand and interpret the resurrection of Jesus, and then I will conclude with a personal testimony.

2. Inconvenient but Astonishing Stories

Since moving to England from South-Africa about five years ago, my assumptions about what’s going on at many different levels here have changed quite considerably. Among other things I went to large bookstores like Waterstone’s in Cambridge where one obviously find the usual Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Jonathan Humphries books, but, to my surprise, I also found fascinating stories of atheists and skeptics who changed their minds, and today believe with integrity that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross and really rose from the dead. They have decided to become Christians. So I started reading some of these books, and also personally met former atheists at churches and in coffee shops. (Over Christmas 2011, I had another such encounter when Dr Simon Gathercole, New Testament scholar of the Department of Divinity, Cambridge University who shared with me his journey to faith after being an atheist in high school). I was quite taken by these stories: how can Post-Enlightenment, rational thinking atheists, skeptics or biblical scholars at foremost universities and companies, change their minds about Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity? I share a few of these diverse stories. The first one is quite intriguing, because the person involved is still an atheist today.

Matthew Parris

Probably one of the most fascinating stories I’ve read since moving to England happened while studying at Durham University in the north east of England in 2009. You may be familiar with the (still!) atheist Matthew Parris who writes for The Times newspaper. In January 2009 Parris tells the story of how a small charity invited him back to Malawi in Southern Africa where he grew up as a boy, to be involved in a water project (Pump Aid) providing pumps and clean water to rural communities.(6) When he got there, he witnessed among other things big NGOs in the “lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents”. What happened there reminded him of people who won’t take initiative, are passive, and suppress individuality. In short – “people who won’t take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders”. Parris then goes on to tell the following story:

“But [I also] noticed ... a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team ... It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught”.

Parris then reflects back on a tour of Africa in his twenties with friends:

“Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away ... The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall”.

Remarkably honest, Parris acknowledge that the above encounter

“confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God”.

In the end Parris says: “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”. As one can imagine, after publishing this article in January 2009, Parris got mocked and ridiculed by other atheists in the media. It struck me that Parris held the view that what those African Christians believed (obviously built on what Jesus Christ did for them on the cross and through his resurrection) resulted in honesty, diligence, optimism, liberation, liveliness, curiosity and an engagement with the world. These African Christians’ faith and behaviour was built on the premise that there is life after death –that the universe has an ultimate purpose, and that Jesus really rose from the dead – and because of that, they were changed, transformed and wanted to make a difference in this world – here and now. What they believed about Jesus made all the difference in their communities. To them an after-life made sense, gave them purpose and was based on the belief that Jesus really rose from the dead.

But this is but one story from Africa, and Parris remains an atheist. What about post-Enlightened Europe?

Eta Linnemann

Also while studying in Durham, one day a vicar had a second-hand book sale at Cranmer Hall’s common room, where Anglican students study for ordination. In a large box full of theological books on the coffee table, I saw a highly rated book in liberal theological circles: Parables of Jesus (1966) by Professor Eta Linnemann, the first female professor of theology in Germany in the 1960’s. I eagerly bought the book because I realised in 1978 Linnemann probably caused one of the biggest uproars in German theological scholarship when she renounced her “liberal” theology and became an evangelical Christian believing in a Jesus who really did miracles and was miraculously raised from the dead.

Formally she was a student of the famous Professor Rudolf Bultmann of Marburg who, among other things rejected the literal truth of Jesus’ resurrection. Bultmann proposed it be de-mythologized for our “modern” time because, in his eyes

“... it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracle”. (7)

That day in Durham, I held Professor Linnemann’s famous book in which, among other things, she argued that the Gospels “do not owe their origin to historical and biographical interest, but to a theological motive”. The New Testament does not attest to a “historical” resurrection of Jesus, but a “theological” one which made him “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Reading between the lines it was fairly obvious that Linnemann, in this, her acclaimed and widely read Parables of Jesus did not regard Jesus’ resurrection as a historical event. But in 1985, some 19 years on, Linnemann expressed her change like this:

“I have clear knowledge that my former perverse teaching was sin. At the same time I am happy and thankful that this sin is forgiven me because Jesus bore it on the cross ... I regard everything that I taught and wrote before I entrusted my life to Jesus as refuse ... I have pitched my ... books ...Whatever of these writings I had in my possession I threw into the trash with my own hands in 1978. I ask you sincerely to do the same thing with any of them you may have on your bookshelf”. (8)

After asking for early retirement, Linnemann became a missionary biblical scholar who, until her death on 9 May 2009, taught theology at a Bible College in Indonesia and continued to write academic books, countering her previous work.

Peter Hitchens

Peter is the younger brother of world famous atheist Christopher Hitchens who died in 2011. (9) As a 15 year old atheist rebel, Peter set fire to his Bible on the playing fields of his Cambridge boarding school on a windy spring afternoon in 1967. For him there was no need for “pies in the sky” any more. He “knew” all the arguments about how Christianity had stolen its myths and feast days from pagan faiths, and that it was another in a long line of fairy stories about gods who die and rise again. Like many Britain’s, he ended up viewing God as a “nuisance” and religion as an “embarrassment” or worse. (10)

One fateful day in France, Peter and his then girlfriend visited the Hotel-Dieu in Beaune. Their adventurous spirit led them to the ancient hospital in town where Peter would experience one of the most significant changes in his life. What happened however, was not a “religious experience, nothing mystical, no trance, no swoon, no vision, no voices, no blaze of light”. Peter had a sudden strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. (11) For the first time in his adult life, a catalogue of his “misdeeds, ranging from the embarrassing to the appalling, replayed themselves rapidly” in his mind. All this was caused by Rogier van der Weyden’s fifteenth-century painting “Last Judgement”. Peter’s initial and usual scoff, and “Couldn’t these people think of anything else to depict?” suddenly and surprisingly changed into a gape, his mouth actually hanging open. The people in the painting “were me, and the people I knew”. Peter went away “chastened, and the effect has not worn off in nearly three decades”. (12)

Today Peter is a Christian journalist, still working for The Mail on Sunday and other papers, appearing on TV, and writing books. Whereas in his atheist days he regarded Jesus’ resurrection as just another one of those mythological “dying and rising gods” stories of antiquity, he recently expressed his disappointment that the singing of an Easter hymn on the morning of Eater Day appears to have been quietly discontinued on the BBC. (13) Peter changed and now, whole heartily believes in the reality of sin, of conscience, of eternal life and divine justice. (14) Today he and his family (his wife a former Marxist Atheist) attends a small village church in England. (15)

Frank Morison – Who Moved The Stone?

Frank Morison set out to write one kind of book and found himself compelled by the sheer force of circumstances to write quite another. One day he discovered that he could no longer write the book as he had once conceived it. The evidence led in a new and unexpected direction. It was as though a man set out to cross a forest by a familiar and well-beaten track and came out suddenly where he did not expect to come out. The point of entry was the same; it was the point of emergence that was different.

In the years leading up to Morison’s book, his serious study of the life of Jesus brought him to the definite feeling that, “if I may so put it, His history rested upon very insecure foundations”. (16) For Morison, nineteenth-century German scholarship succeeded in spreading a very prevalent impression among students that the particular form in which the narrative of His life and death had come down to us was unreliable. Also, the physical sciences convinced him that one cannot accept the miraculous elements in the Gospels. To him the possibility that the laws of the universe should go back on themselves in a quite arbitrary and inconsequential manner seemed very improbable. At best, one had to emulate Matthew Arnold who in his “Sweet Reasonableness” had spent a great deal of his time in trying to evolve a non-miraculous Christianity. (17)

With this in mind Morison’s plan was to write a book entitled “Jesus, the Last Phase”. Why? Because the last seven days of the life of Jesus seemed remarkably free from the miraculous; the Gospel writes devoted much space to this period; and the trial and execution of Jesus was a reverberating historical event. Morison wanted to

“... take the Last Phase of the life of Jesus, with all its quick and pulsating drama, its sharp, clear-cut background of antiquity, and its tremendous psychological and human interest – to strip it of its overgrowth of primitive beliefs and dogmatic suppositions”. (18)

What changed? Morison got the opportunity to study the life of Christ as he long wanted to study, to investigate the origins of its literature, to sift the evidence, and to form his own judgement on the problems which it presented. Morison’s close study “effected a revolution” in his thought:

“Things emerged from that old-world story which previously I should have thought impossible. Slowly but very definitely the conviction grew that the drama of those unforgettable weeks of human history was stranger and deeper than it seemed. It was the strangeness of many notable things on the story ... which arrested and held my interest ... later the irresistible logic of their meaning came into view”. (19)

Morison had to change the topic and title of his book. He changed it from “Jesus, the Last Phase” to “Who Moved the Stone?” first published in 1930 and still in print today.

Lee Strobel

“For much of my life I was a skeptic. In fact, I considered myself an atheist” – writes Lee Strobel in the introduction of his best seller The Case For Christ. As legal affairs editor of the influential Chicago Tribune (a leading US newspaper), Strobel, an award winning journalist with a Master of Studies in Law from Yale Law School, believed there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking, of ancient mythology, of primitive superstition. When it came to Jesus, Strobel like many sceptics saw him as a human being with “unusual gifts of kindness and wisdom”, but nothing more. He explains:

“Let’s face it: even a cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates convincingly that Jesus had only been a human being just like you and me ... As far as I was concerned, the case was closed. There was enough proof for me to rest easy with the conclusion that the divinity of Jesus was nothing more than the fanciful invention of superstitious people. Or so I thought”. (20)

What changed? Stobel’s wife stunned him in the autumn of 1979 by announcing that she had become a Christian. He “rolled” his eyes and braced for the worst, “feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch scam”. (21)

He married one Leslie – the fun Leslie, the carefree Leslie, the risk-taking Leslie – and now he feared she was going to turn into “somesort of sexually repressed prude who would trade their upwardly mobile lifestyle for all-night prayer vigils and volunteer work in grimy soup kitchens”. Instead he was pleasantly surprised by the fundamental changes in her character, her integrity, and her personal confidence.

Lee wanted to get to the bottom of this and eventually “launched an all-out investigation” into the facts surrounding the case for Christianity, utilising all the journalistic tools he acquired at Yale Law School as well as his experience as legal affairs editor. After about four years of intense research, interviews with world-class biblical scholars, “things began to point toward the unthinkable”. (22)

Today, 33 years on, Lee has written more than 17 books, is a minister and has appeared on CNN, ABC, FOX News and has a television program on PAX TV called Faith under Fire.

You may perhaps say: “Nice stories, very interesting, but ... did Jesus really rise from the dead? Are the Gospels credible? Will I one day rise from the dead?” Despite our postmodern culture and the accompanying search for meaning instead of absolute truths and facts, these kinds of questions which some would want to label as very modernistic or outdated-post-Enlightenment questions, are actually still asked by many sceptics. (24)

I’ll never forget the fascinating dialogue I had with a sceptical Dutch girl a few months ago on a Ryanair flight from Stansted Airport to Dusseldorf Weeze in Germany. I had a large volume on the resurrection open in front of me, and was preparing a paper for a conference on my laptop computer. She was talking to her boyfriend sitting next to her most of the time, but now and then she was staring in my direction. She seemed to be curious about my book. Eventually she asked me: “What are you doing?” So I told her that I’m busy with a PhD looking at possible historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and how the early Christians lived as a result of their faith in him. She was completely surprised and couldn’t believe that one could do a PhD about that! We then had a very interesting and friendly dialogue. Just before the plane landed, she said something I’ll never forget: “Well, if there is credible historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then I will probably have to look into it”.

I’m going to try and unpack eight pieces of evidence that might assist us to come to an informed understanding of the circumstances surrounding the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. There is, of course much more that can and should be added. There are substantial volumes like The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 2003) by N.T. Wright, or The Resurrection of Jesus. A New Historiographical Approach (Apollos: Nottingham, 2010) by Michael R. Licona for those who want to go deeper. The evidence I discuss is not necessarily the “best” pieces of evidence, they are just matters I am currently interested in which might hopefully be of interest to some of you.

1. Hostile Evidence

If there’s a car accident in front of your church and the police ask the parties involved what actually happened, in our modern day and age one would not be surprised to get two radically opposing and different stories. More so if a no-claims bonus for your car insurance is on the line I suppose. Eyewitnesses standing at a distance might give a more credible account of what actually happened. The latter is the kind of evidence valued in a court of law. We call this hostile evidence – thus, credible evidence from outside the sphere of the interested parties. (25)

Do we have such evidence for the events reported in the canonical Gospels? I name a few (not all directly related to the resurrection as such, but still indirectly significant).

Josephus

Josephus (AD 37-100) was an aristocratic Jew from Jerusalem who at some stage belonged to the Pharisees (as did the Apostle Paul before his conversion). When the Romans invaded Israel in 66, Josephus was appointed military leader to defend Galilee. There he was captured and went over to the Roman side. In Josephus’ work Testimonium Flavianum, independent of the New Testament we learn about Jesus being a “wise man”, his successful preaching, his condemnation to be crucified, and his followers (“the tribe of Christians”) who remained faithful to him even after his death:

“... there lived Jesus, a wise man ... He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks ... Pilate ... had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him ... the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared”. (26)

In Josephus’ famous Antiquities of the Jews, we learn of James, the brother of Jesus’ execution by the high priest Annas:

“Ananus thought he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus was still on his way. So he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and certain others. He ... delivered them up to be stoned”. (27)

Before his death, James had been the leader of the church in Jerusalem and presided over a large community (cf. Gal 1:19, 2:9; Mark 6:3; Acts 15:23-29; 21:20). We hear nothing of Jesus’ resurrection in Josephus, but it is fair to say that implicitly, we do find traces of the consequences and implications of it on his followers. In 1 Cor 15: 7 Paul reports that Jesus appeared to his brother James who, before that did not believe in Him (John 7:5).

NT Wright makes the interesting point that given the fact that James had probably not been a disciple of Jesus during the latter’s public career,

“it is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus”. (28)

It therefore seems reasonable to argue that Josephus’ independent reports confirm that something significant happened following Jesus’ crucifixion, resulting in a “tribe of Christians” who remained faithful to him in the decades that followed; and the execution of his brother who was a sceptic but became the leader of the Jerusalem Church following Jesus’ crucifixion.

Pliny the Younger

In the year 110 Pliny (AD 61-112) was sent by Emperor Trajan to govern the disorganised province Bithynia. Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan, from 110 – 112 is recorded in book 10 of his letter. In letter 96 he reports on the rapid spread of Christianity with the result that pagan temples were abandoned and the businesses benefiting from the temples had been affected.

Significant for us is that Pliny interrogated Christians and sentenced them to death if they insisted they were Christians, after being asked the question three times. For their freedom they had to i) invoke the state gods according to Pliny’s dictated statement; ii) engage in an act of worship with incense to the emperor’s image; iii) and also curse Christ. Pliny was in a position to write accurately to Trajan about the confessions and beliefs of the Christians he interrogated. One significant report relates to the meeting together “on an appointed day” to sing hymns to “Christ as a god”:

“They maintained that their guilt or error had amounted only to this: they had been in the habit of meeting on an appointed day before daybreak and singing hymns antiphonally to Christ as a god, and binding themselves with an oath – not to commit any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, from breach of faith, and from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it. After this ceremony, it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble to take food of a harmless kind”. (29)

Paul Barnett is probably correct to deduce from the above evidence that the “appointed day” points to the resurrection-day meetings, on “the first day of the week”; and the apologetic tone of “food of the harmless kind” suggesting the Eucharist, commemorating Jesus’ death and future return. (30) The reference to hymns being sang to “Christ as if a god” is particularly interesting. If Pliny had regarded Christ as a god comparable to Asclepius or Osiris, he would obviously have written “to the god Christ”. Instead Pliny reports of “Christ as if a god” which therefore makes sense to approximate the latter to the New Testament conviction that by his resurrection, the man Jesus of Nazareth who had been crucified was worshipped as the exalted Kyrious and God (cf. Thomas’ confession in John 20:28 after seeing the resurrected Christ).

Archaeological evidence

In 1878 a Roman inscription was found called the “Nazareth Inscription”. It says, in the name of Caesar, that:

“Graves and tombs ... must remain undisturbed ... If any person has destroyed or in any manner extracted those who were buried to another place ... or has moved sepulchre-sealing stones ... they should suffer capital punishment as a tomb-breaker”.

This inscription has been dated to between AD 40-60. Some biblical scholars argue that it could be significant given the gospel of Matthew’s description of the Roman soldiers who reportedly fell asleep at Jesus’ tomb and the events that followed:

... some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened ... they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying ‘Tell them, His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure (Matt 28:11-14).

The inscription may represent the official Roman reaction to the Jewish interpretation of the resurrection. Dr David Instone-Brewer from Cambridge argues that Jesus’ resurrection and the chief priests story may have prompted this particular inscription because it doesn’t threaten death for robbing graves, but for moving bodies. It is further concerned only with Jewish tombs, because Roman tombs contained urns of ashes, not bodies. “Why would the emperor be so concerned about Jewish corpses being moved from one tomb to another?” Instone-Brewer asks. The emperor, in trying to prevent more crazy Jewish religions like Christianity to spring up, probably gave order for this particular public notice.

This does not, of course provide us with conclusive evidence that Jesus really rose from the dead, but it does suggest that the Christians, Jewish authorities and perhaps even the Roman rulers knew that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. (31)

Archaeological excavations since the 19th century have provided us with solid evidence for previously disputed place names and titles of important figures which the Gospels and Acts refer to. (32)

2. Eyewitness Testimony

In especially critical German circles, a theory is held that by the time the canonical gospels were written, none of the eyewitnesses were still alive. Apparently, the eyewitnesses and their valuable reports, have been long lost in the anonymity of collective and legendary transmission by that time. (33)

Really? If this theory is to be rejected, how do we know that the New Testament provides us with genuine eyewitness accounts of what happened?

Eyewitnesses in 1 Cor 15:3-9

Even the liberal biblical scholar Gerd Lüdemann (who does not believe in the literal resurrection) acknowledge that in 1 Cor 15:3-9 we have a very early report of eyewitnesses who believed they saw the risen Jesus. Paul makes clear that what he hands down to the Corinthians is what he “first received” (15:3). Even more significant is that there is virtually consensus among biblical scholars that 15:3-5b comes from within three to five years following the events that took place in Jerusalem. (34) The formulaic structure in the verses is very early. We are told further that Jesus appeared to Peter (15:5), James, the brother of Jesus (15:7), Paul (15:8) and also to

over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep (15:6). (35)

The reference to the “greater part” that remain alive at present indicates that Paul offers evidence that can be tested. These brethren can be consulted in order to confirm what Paul is reporting. Bauckham is therefore on target when he states: “... the events were well within the living memory of people to whom easy access was possible”. (36) If this particular report was made up, Paul would have done much better to exclude the part of the sentence that spoke about those still alive after witnessing the risen Christ. The fact that he includes it shows that he i) trusts the source; ii) that he possibly spoke to some of the brothers himself; iii) and that the evidence can be cross-checked by the eyewitnesses - some who were possibly in the Corinthian church as well as others scattered all over the Roman Empire.

Eyewitnesses in Luke 1:1-4

Another relevant example is Luke 1:1-4 where Luke (who most probably knew and accompanied Paul on some mission trips) specifically mentions that he consulted eyewitnesses. He states, in proper and conventional historiographical fashion how carefully he went about investigating the events he reports on:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed”. (37)

Paul Barnett has provided us with a fascinating parallel from the important Jewish historian Josephus’s Against Apion (written decades later and in a different context) where he states:

“... most excellent Epaphroditus, I ... devote a brief treatise ... in order to ... instruct all who desire to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race”.

Barnett indicates that although Luke is not dependent on Josephus, they are both observing an established convention about their prefaces in a genre of literature that is broadly historical in character. (38) Both Luke and Josephus therefore, made use of known historiographical conventions that characterised broadly historical type works in the first century Roman Empire.

But what evidence outside of the New Testament writings do we have?

Papias

The well-educated Papias, (39) bishop of Hierapolis (AD 70-155) completed his major work, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord probably before the martyrdom of Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107. (40) Highly significant is that some of the surviving fragments tell us of an earlier period (probably AD 80) when Papias collected oral reports from eyewitnesses who knew and encountered Jesus personally. This collection by Papias took place roughly at the same time that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were most likely being written. In the Prologue to Papias’s work he writes:

“I shall not hesitate also to put into properly ordered form for you everything I learnt carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well, for the truth of which I vouch ... I did ... enjoy those who ... teach the truth ... who remember the commandments given by the Lord ... I enquired about the words of the elders – what Andrew and Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew ... and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice”. (41)

Thus what Papias says in this passage provides us with an outside source that can be placed alongside Luke’s reference to the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) as well as the resurrection testimony Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15:6. It appears that Luke, Paul and Papias had access to those (the “disciples of the Lord” as Papias puts it) still alive who were direct participants in the historical events. (42) A careful analysis of the available fragments further shows that Papias, when writing up his testimony had access to the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John. (43)

Polycarp

From the same area and time as Papias, Polycarp (AD 69-155), bishop of Smyrna, provides us (through Irenaeus AD 130-200) with similar reports of eyewitness testimony and the transmission of Gospel tradition:

“I can tell the very place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed ... how he would tell of his conversations with John and the other who had seen the Lord, how he would relate their words from memory ... as having received them from eyewitnesses ...” (44)

On top of this, it is interesting to note Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (written between AD 110-140) in which his view of the resurrection is, according to NT Wright, “completely in line with the New Testament”. (45) Polycarp states in chapter 5:2:

“For if we please him in the present age, we shall receive also the age to come, just as he promised us that he would raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of him we shall also reign with him, if we have faith”. (46)

And finally (and in continuity with the above) the author of the martyrdom of Polycarp records his prayer as he goes to the fire in 14:2:

“I bless you, because you have counted me worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a share in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of your Messiah, for the resurrection of eternal life of both soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy Spirit”. (47)

Thus, the available evidence in Polycarp provide us with possible eyewitness testimony for the apostles; Polycarp’s understanding of the resurrection (which is in line with the New Testament); as well as the next generation’s belief in future bodily resurrection following Polycarp’s martyrdom.

If we combine the probable evidence for eyewitness testimony, we have at least the following:

1 Cor 15:3-9 (Paul) +- AD 39-45

Mark (Mark) +- AD 60-70 (48)

Luke1 (Luke) +- AD 80

Exposition of the Logia of the Lord (Papias) +- AD 80-106

Letter to the Philippians (Polycarp) +- AD 110-140

Letter to Florinus (Irenaeus) Polycarp +- AD 140-150

3. Four Gospels, Not One

Why were there four Gospels canonised and not just one? Why four different accounts of what happened at Jesus’ empty tomb? There was a time in biblical scholarship that sceptics actually argued that the events reported in the gospels cannot be taken seriously and should be regarded as legendary because the church canonised four distinct gospels and not one. Stephen J Patterson from the Jesus Seminar in the United States for instance, regards the differences between them as reason to disregard them as careless fiction. Actually today historians think the credibility of the gospels are more plausible because we have four different and no just one story. Bauckham states that the divergences, properly understood, demonstrate the scrupulous care with which the Gospels present their stories. Wright puts it strikingly:

“The stories exhibit ... exactly that surface tension which we associate, not with tales artfully told by people eager to sustain a fiction and therefore anxious to make everything look right, but with the hurried, puzzled accounts of those who have seen with their own eyes something which took them horribly by surprise and with which they have not yet fully come to terms”. (50)

If we witness and then describe a car accident, everyone’s story will be from a different angle. Are the different perspectives therefore automatically wrong? Not necessarily. The one witness sees the back number plate, the other the font; another the side etc. Similarly, Bauckham argues that the striking differences in for instance the empty tomb stories “may well reflect rather directly the different ways in which the story was told by the different women”. (51)

When in 172 Tatian, a student of Justin Martyr tried to make one single and harmonious story out of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in his Diatessaron (or Gospel of the Mixed), the church rejected it as heresy. But why? Tatian tried to solve the so-called “discrepancies, delete duplicate stories and fill[ed] those gaps found in individual canonical gospels”. (52) Tatian intended his Diatessaron to replace the individual gospels. (53) This endeavour was in tension with the orthodox affirmation of a four-fold gospel canon.

The foundational events that launched the church into existence was too overwhelming and life-changing to be restricted and captured in one single gospel. With the guidance of the Spirit, the church canonised four unique and different interpretations of the life and work of Jesus.

4. Women the First Witnesses

What sort of person will be regarded as a credible and reliable witness in a high profile London High Court case? If a judge were to choose between evidence given by, lets say a traveller with a criminal record and an Oxbridge educated businessmen, which will he choose? Obviously the latter.

In first century Palestine, a women’s testimony was not deemed as reliable. In a Jewish court of law, it counted only half of a man’s testimony. In a Roman court of law, it counted nothing. We can push this dire situation even further with a modern day ultra orthodox Jewish example. After attending a “Jewish Learning Exchange program” in the early 1980’s lead by Rabbi David Gottlieb of Ohr Someyach in Jerusalem, a female attendee reflected back on the Rabbi’s interesting statements about the difference between men and women. He suggested that,

“to follow the change introduced in the Conservative service (instead of thanking God for ‘not having created me a woman, the new blessing [for men] seeks to avoid invidious comparison and thanks God for ‘having created me a man’) would mean putting one’s own existence in the forefront”. (54)

The female attendee indicated that the most radical response however came from Rabbi Krupnick, Dean of Brovender’s Shappel for Women, who, highlighted three blessings of the morning prayers for men: Thanking God for not having created one a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. These were apparently added to the prayer for men to counter the former Jew Paul’s egalitarianism in Galatians 3:28. (55)

With these (tragic!) examples of the inferiority of women in mind (as well as the insignificance of their testimony in ancient court contexts), what do we find in the canonical Gospels? Mark, probably the earliest Gospel reports in chapter 16:1-4 as follows:

“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, that they might come and anoint Him ... they came to the tomb ... when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away...”

If the gospel writers wanted to create a “perfect” story to convince sceptics and gentiles about the empty tomb, the first witnesses would certainly not have been women. In a “perfect” story, Peter, John and the other disciples ought to have been the first to know. NT Wright captures this nicely:

“If they could have invented stories of fine, upstanding, reliable male witnesses being first at the tomb, they would have done so ... Nobody inventing stories after twenty years, let alone thirty or forty, would have [placed the women in] it like that”. (56)

Why did all four Gospels stick with the women, and also the confusions? Given the unusual reports of women being the first witnesses, Richard Bauckham states that the evidence suggests that the stories were not simply invented. (57) Michael Licona puts it even stronger: “... the remembrance of the tradition was so strong and widespread [about the women] that it had to be included”. (58)

It was a question of time before someone like Celcus, the second-century intellectual despiser of Christianity dismissed the testimony of Mary Magdalene by calling her “a hysterical female”. (59) Instead of undermining the credibility of the stories of the women at the empty tomb, we have a situation where in 2010, probably the most contentious biblical scholar in Europe, Gerd Lüdemann (who regards the empty tombs stories as legendary), at a large conference in Belgium acknowledged that in academic circles, the resurrection stories have steadily gained more credence and, in particular, the story of the empty tomb has received a historical boost. (60)

5. Personal Names

Think a moment: are we inclined to remember the name of a person we spoke to a few days ago better than a person we spoke to a few years ago? It might depend on the kind of a conversation we had, but generally speaking, we are prone to forget personal names rather quickly. The chances are good that we will remember significant events of years gone by, but the names are more often than not forgotten rather quickly. (61)

When it comes to the Gospels, Rudolph Bultmann thought otherwise. He argued that personal names in the Gospels like Rufus and Alexander - Simon of Cyrene who carried Jesus’ cross’ two children; or some ladies at the tomb of Jesus like Mary mother of James and Joses, and Salome were actually secondary additions and are examples of “novelistic interest”. (62)

This theory has recently received a significant blow in Richard Bauckham’s extensive treatment of personal names in the Gospels. Here are a few good questions to ask:

Why does Mark mention Simon of Cyrene’s two children Rufus and Alexander who really don’t need to be named? (They are absent from the other Gospels).

Why is only one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Cleopas) named and not the other? Wouldn’t logic require either both or none to be named?

Why does the Gospel of John have anonymous characters in such stories as the Samaritan women, the paralysed man, and the man born blind (which are significant stories!), but name the high priest’s slave Malchus, whose ear is cut off in the garden of Gethsemane?

After a careful study Bauckham states that named people like: Jesus’ close disciples; Simon of Cyrene and his sons; Cleopas; Malchus; Bartimaeus; Levi; Nathanael; Nicodemus; Joseph of Arimathea; Simon the leper; Lazarus; Martha; Zacchaeus; Jesus’ brother James and the female disciples either i) comprised the earliest Christian groups; ii) or would have been known in the Jerusalem church where stories in which they are named were first told; iii) or many of them were the eyewitnesses who first told and doubtless continued to tell the stories in which they appear and to which their names were attached. (63)

But why are some named and others remain anonymous even in significant stories?

The answer is rather simple: it demonstrates the scrupulous care with which the Gospels present the stories. They could have invented personal names for apologetic purposes but they didn’t; they name personal names where and when it is known, and conservatively keep those anonymous whose names they don’t know.

Another interesting point to make (argued by Pete Williams from Tyndale House, Cambridge) (64) is the relatively few place and personal names in later Gnostic writings like the Gospel of Thomas in comparison with the canonical Gospels. Whereas older critical commentators used to argue for very early dates (and therefore more credible testimony about Jesus) in certain Gnostic Gospels, the opposite can be argued today: The meticulous care with which the canonical Gospels mention dozens of place and personal names (the latter discussed above, the former confirmed by modern Palestinian geography), gives weight to their credibility, whereas later Gnostic gospels, where only minimal place and personal names are mentioned could be understood to be an indication of its long distance from the events and the stories they tell.

6. Subjective Insiders and the Holocaust?

In psychology up until the 1980’s we were taught that if you’ve had an exceptionally traumatic experience, it makes your later reflection on that experience or event highly subjective and inaccurate. With this in mind some scholars have argued that the male and female disciples must have been very subjective about their claims that Jesus rose from the dead. The disciples, particularly Peter must have felt very guilty having cursed Jesus and then fleeing from Golgotha which in turn could’ve resulted in him not witnessing the appearance of a literal Jesus, but actually experiencing a subjective vision or hallucination. The liberal biblical scholar Gerd Lüdemann from Göttingen suggests that Peter and Paul had a psychological “Christ complex” which triggered visionary experiences. Accordingly, what we have in the Gospels and Paul’s letters, are the subjective visionary experiences of his followers, which they mixed with creative legends. (65)

And then I discovered Richard Bauckham’s 2009 prise winning work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. In it Bauckham describes astonishing oral recollections and testimonies of Holocaust survivors, some fifty years after their horrific experiences. Some of the stories were astonishingly successful, characterised by “deep living memory”, “authenticity” and not your “typically literary embellishments”. The testimonies were conveyed “without distorting the truth they witnessed”. (66)

Apart from the radically different contexts, what, if anything, is the significance of this for the New Testament testimony about the Easter events?

Bauckham found four possible similarities between the Holocaust and the history of Jesus:

i) The Holocaust, through unique testimony discloses what we could not otherwise know about the nature of evil and atrocity and the human situation in the modern world. The history of Jesus, through unique testimony discloses God’s definitive action for human salvation (through the horror of the cross and God’s definitive action in the resurrection).

ii) The qualitative uniqueness of the Holocaust and history of Jesus cannot be fully appreciated through ordinary experiences and understanding of our ordinary world. Its uniqueness breaks through conventional methodological models!

iii) Despite the incredibly traumatic nature of both the Holocaust and history of Jesus, participant witnesses in both events have felt the imperative to communicate and bear witness of what happened. They both caused a “new literature of testimony” – within which we get access to surprisingly accurate eyewitness testimony!

iv) So-called 21st century detached historians cannot fully grasp or comprehend the exceptionality of the events which only Holocaust survivors and eyewitnesses of Easter can give us. They alone can give us access to the truth of the events.(67)

Most remarkably for me after reading Bauckham’s book is that standard psychological theories about the subjectivity, irrationality and inaccuracy that characterise victims’ testimonies of exceptionally traumatic experiences has been proven wrong by some Holocaust survivors. Not in all cases, but certainly in some, eyewitnesses were able to testify with astonishing accuracy to the horrific events that happened in German concentration camps – fifty years later! I was delighted that after my paper (17 March 2012) a clinical psychologist who attended the meeting, in a personal conversation, acknowledged this part of my paper. He said it is part of his job to try and help patients forget the sometimes vivid recollections and memories of traumatic experiences in the past. The problem, as my friend explained, was that some patients remember to much of the traumatic experiences they had.

Should we distrust Holocaust survivors’ testimonies about what happened at the gas chambers of Auschwitz? Are the survivors subjective and involved witnesses? Of course they are. Does it follow that we cannot trust their stories? Certainly not! After reading Bauckham’s 538 page book, the late Graham Stanton, former Lady Margaret Professor of divinity of Cambridge University is probably right to state (on the back cover) that Bauckham’s book

“Shakes the foundations of a century of scholarly study of the Gospels. There are surprises on every page. A wealth of new insights will provoke lively discussion for a long time to come. Readers at all levels will be grateful for Bauckham’s detective work that uncovers clues missed by so many”.

7. Next Generation Confirmation

A controversial Patristic scholar from Kings College, London, recently claimed that following the Apostle Paul’s death, the resurrection of Jesus disappeared from the scene for a generation or two until the middle of the second century when Marcion, the wealthy ship builder from Sinope (who tried to buy the church’ favour with money) resurrected belief in the resurrection. (68)

This hypothesis is actually quite improbable. Why? Because one of the strong arguments for the resurrection of Jesus is actually the substantial amount apostolic and post apostolic references we have of either believers’ or Jesus’ resurrection. Here are a few examples:

Clement, Bishop of Rome in the late first century in his letter to the Corinthians writes about the resurrection at three places. In chapter 24 for instance, he states:

“Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showed unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruit, when He raised Him from the dead”.

In chapter 42:3 Clement explains what the basis of the glad tidings of the kingdom of God was for the disciples:

“Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come”.

For Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107) in his letters, written while on his way to Rome to face martyrdom in the first decade of the second century, the resurrection of believers and especially of Jesus, is foundational. In chapter 3:1-3 of his letter to Smyrna for instance, he writes:

“For I know and believe that after the resurrection he was in the flesh. And when he came to the people around Peter, he said to them, Take, handle me and see, that I am not a bodiless phantom ... And after his resurrection he ate with them and drank as a fleshly being, even though he was spiritually united to the father”.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (AD 69-155), in his letter to the Philippians, is in line with the New Testament understanding of the resurrection. Jesus himself was raised and will be judge of both living and departed. Those who do his will will also be raised as chapter 5:2 states:

“For if we please him in the present age, we shall receive also the age to come, just as he promised us that he would raise us from the dead ... we shall also reign with him, if we have faith”.

Those who report on Polycarp’s martyrdom also confirm belief in the future resurrection.

In fragments that survived through others, Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (AD 60-130) clearly also believed in the resurrection of Jesus and of believers in the future. Papias reflects on Revelation 20 and describes Christ’s return and the establishment of the kingdom of God in bodily and material form.

Other relatively early figures in who’s work the resurrection is well attested include the likes of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus.

And then came Celcus!

Belief in the resurrection of Jesus and of believers became so wide spread by the late second century that a significant philosophical attack against it was launched by Celcus, a gifted Middle-Platonic philosopher and pagan writer. For Celcus, Christians were not just a danger to the security of the state, a menace to the order of society, and an innovation that threatened [what he held to be] traditional values, (69) he mocked them for their belief in “another earth, different and better than this one” as well as belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and believers. Celcus put forward provocative attacks against the latter, some of which is worth mentioning very briefly. In his work On the True Doctrine he plays devil’s advocate with the Christians and asks:

“But who really saw this? A hysterical woman, as you admit and perhaps one other person – both deluded by his sorcery, or else so wretched with grief at his failure that they hallucinated him risen from the dead by a sort of wishful thinking ... After getting some few to believe them, it was small matter for the fire of superstition to spread”.(70)

Celcus thinks the Christians have misunderstood Plato’s doctrine of reincarnation,

“and believe in the absurd theory that the corporeal body will be raised ... and that somehow they will actually see God with their mortal eyes and hear him with their ears and be able to touch him with their hands”.(71)

Celcus also thought that Christians saw a phantom or ghost, rather than a corporeal Jesus. It was the great Alexandrian writer Origen (185-254), (72) whose father was martyred for his faith who took up the task of engaging with Celcus’ arguments. Origen was more nuanced about the composition of the future resurrection bodies of believers than his predecessors, but remained within the broad New Testament boundaries. We need not discuss his rebuttals in the wake of Celcus’ attacks in detail. Perhaps, to conclude this section, his statements regarding Celcus’ claim about believers seeing a ghost or phantom, provides us with a suitable bridge to the next part. Origen writes:

“How is it possible that a phantom which ... flew past to deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed away, and could so turn the hearts of man as to lead them to regulate their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being hereafter judged by him? And how could a phantom drive away demons ... making its divine power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?”(73)

Origen’s answer in which the growth of the Christian community is mentioned supplies a suitable bridge to the next section, the exponential and non-violent growth of the Christian church.

8. Exponential Non-Violent Growth

Sociologists aren’t generally known for being religious. I remember attending a sociology seminar in Durham, UK in 2009 when a famous British sociologist gave a paper on the sosio- religious history of Evangelicalism in Britain. During Q & A afterwards I asked him whether he believed in God. His reply was: “You can come and speak to me afterwards”. As a general principle, sociologists try to keep their personal religious convictions out of their academic work. They try and look at the sosio-historical data as objective as possible.

A few years ago a theologian of Stellenbosch, South Africa introduced me to the award winning American sociologist Rodney Stark’s work, who wrote a sociology of the early church. Stark is known for his research into how and why the Christian church developed the way it did. By the fourth century the Roman Empire had around 60 million people of which roughly 30 million were Christians. Stark traces back the reasons why this exponential growth took place.

One of the foundational beliefs that energised this rapid growth across the empire, was, as Stark sees it, their belief that death was not the end, which in turn led to their extraordinary care for orphans, widows, the sick, and the poor. In light of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead, and their hope of eternal life, they became what Paul Johnson calls “a miniature welfare state in an empire which for the most part lacked social services”. (74)

This is probable, as Stark quotes from a pastoral letter (to encourage believers) which Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to his congregation towards the end of the big second plague and devastating epidemics. Dionysius writes that Christians

“took charge of the sick, attending to their every need ... they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbours and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead ... The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that in death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith”. (75)

Significant was that the pagans tossed victims (most of whom were still alive) in the streets to die, for their “gods did not offer any escape from mortality”. Pagan gods required only propitiation and beyond that had no interest in what humans did. There was therefore no religious reason to attend to the needy and the sick. Conversely, Christians believed in life everlasting. “Faith mattered” Stark declares, which resulted in unprecedented acts of kindness, mercy and love towards the outcasts of society. In his highly acclaimed work The Rise of Christianity, published by Princeton University Press in 1996, Stark puts their ethos strikingly:

“To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with... strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachments. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity ... what they brought was not simply an urban movement, but a new culture capable of making life in Greco-Roman cities more tolerable”.(76)

What made the ultimate difference was belief in life everlasting which the risen Jesus of Nazareth, and not pagan myths of gods dying and rising broke open. This resulted in unprecedented love, charity and care for those in need. (77) This interconnectedness between ethics, evangelism and eschatology is masterfully presented by Dr Bruce Winter, former Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, in his 2012 chapter “Steadfast, immovable, always abounding’: the connecting of ethics, evangelism and eschatology”, in ed. Brain Rosner, The Wisdom of the Cross (Apollos: Nottingham, 2012).

Summery of Evidence

I have offered eight pieces of evidence that might assist us to come to an informed understanding of the circumstances surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. They are:

1. Hostile evidence

2. Eyewitness testimony

3. Four gospels, not one

4. Women the first witnesses

5. Personal names

6. Subjective insiders and the Holocaust?

7. Next generation confirmation

8. Exponential non-violent growth

To reiterate what I said at the beginning, the evidence discussed is not necessarily the “best” evidence available, it is just research fields I am currently interested in which might hopefully be of interest to some.

Significance

To wrap up, is belief in an after-life really nonsense? Does the universe really have no ultimate purpose? Is belief in Jesus’ resurrection really the anachronistic superstition of first century Christians? Is this life really all there is?.... Or is there more?

One can read substantial volumes about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It surely is interesting to me, and perhaps to some of you, and we have probably looked at a few groundbreaking one’s today! God has used the evidence and his Spirit to bring some to faith as we saw (Eta Linnemann, Frank Morison, Peter Hitchens, Lee Strobel)! But what will ultimately convince me and you? Apart from the evidence, I can only share with you a piece of my family history. It started in the late 19th century.

As you will know, the Boers and the English had two wars in South Africa, generally referred to as the Anglo Boer War (the Afrikaners refer to it as the English War). (78) Whatever the reasons for it, we don’t have to go into detail. But there’s one interesting thing that happened during the second war which I want to share with you. The English, under Lord Charles Somerset decided to import Scottish ministers to South Africa which included the very prominent Rev Andrew Murray. Since at least 1822 they were tasked, among other things to convince the Afrikaners to speak English rather than Afrikaans. Somerset had a strategy to rid the Cape of Afrikaans and thought the Scottish ministers will preach to the Afrikaners in English which in time will lead to the disappearance of Afrikaans.

During the second war (1899-1902) captured Boers were put in concentration camps. Dr Andrew Murray (the son of Rev Murray - through the Retief family far related to my own family) decided to go to some of these camps to preached the gospel (in Afrikaans!). (Some of the Boers lost their wives and children in concentration camps [+- 28 000], farms were burnt etc - most of them were bitter and angry with the English). Andrew Murray’s preaching among the Boers bear fruit. After the war an estimated one hundred of these Boer prisoners of war decided not to go back and rebuild their farms. Instead, they decided to become missionaries in Zimbabwe, Malawi and other places. I am somehow related to those traditions.

My father and mother (full-times missionaries at an African Bible College in Mpumalanga, northern South Africa) visited us here in Cambridge over December 2011 and shared with me things about the Boer War I never knew before. My father told me that his grand mother was raped by three British soldiers in a concentration camp. I was stunned, but I think I eventually smiled and said something like this “Daddy, you know why we can forgive? Because of what Jesus did for us when he died on the cross and rose from the dead”. That is why I can stand here before you today and testify about Jesus who died and rose from the dead.

We have numerous helpful pieces of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but perhaps, for those of you not interested in the latest archaeological finds, or the most recent monograph on the historical evidence, I offer my ordinary story: I came to this country as a normal South African youngster to study further. All I can tell you is that in Jesus’ cross and resurrection, I found not just an exciting academic theme to study, but I also found what I hold to be true meaning, true reconciliation and true forgiveness. Maybe you’ve also struggled and have been searching for that your whole life, trying to find ultimate meaning.

My question to you and to me today is this: After truthfully wrestling with the evidence and witnessing the changed lives following claims about Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, can we honestly think that this life is really all there is? Maybe there is something more...

Prayer

Lord I’m sorry for becoming emotional. I know its not the right thing to do, especially in England. But I can’t help to be excited, not about all these scientists, professors and historical findings in the first place, but because I’ve come to realise that there is really more to this life than eating and drinking and dying. I’ve come to see in Jesus’ cross and resurrection that there is hope beyond death, and because of that we want to live now as true and new people. Thank you Lord for this beautiful country. Thank you Lord for this lovely congregation. Perhaps there’s one or two people who are doubting and not sure about You. May it be that You plant a seed in their hearts. Will You take them by the hand and lead them through all their difficulties and questions and bring them to the other side knowing that there is meaning in life because Jesus changed everything. We pray this in your wonderful name, Amen.

Footnotes

This is a reworked version of my talk at the Parish of the Icknield Way Villages (South of Cambridge) on 17 March 2012. I have added valuable recommendations by some who attended the meeting.

David Jenkins, The Calling of a Cuckoo. Not Quite an Autobiography (Continuum: London, 2002), 178-179. Cf. also “I am wrestling, in the light of God’s unique presence in and as Jesus Christ, with what miracles actually are in a realistic and down-to-earth way”. Jenkins is sceptical of belief in the bodily resurrection and empty tomb of Jesus as historical events. He states further “The resurrection narratives are far more about encounters and namings and joyful recognitions than about the empty tomb” (180).

Ibid, 59.

See also the Old Testament reference in Isa 22: 13.

It would be unfair to include Jenkins here, although one can indeed have valid reasons to differ from him about things like the historical reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible. Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (Kregal Publications: Grand Rapids, 1990), 20. One need not agree with all of Linnemann’s insights, especially her almost complete negative stance towards “critical” scholarship to recognise her courage to challenge historical criticism in its classic Troeltschian formulation. For a balanced description of Linnemann’s post-1978 work, discussing both critical and supportive reviews see Robert W. Yarbrough, “Eta Linnemann. Friend or Foe of Scholarship?” TMSJ 8/2 (Fall 1997) 163-189.

Christopher has written New York best-sellers like God is Not Great (Atlantic Books: London, 2007), and The Portable Atheist (Da Capo Press: Philadelphia, 2007). Apart from his atheistic works he is also known for his critiques of Mother Theresa and his support of the American invasion of Iraq.

Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God (Continuum: London, 2010), 11.

Ibid, 75.

Ibid, 76.

Ibid, 90.

Ibid, 98.

Ibid, 82.

Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (Faber: London, 1930), 9.

Ibid, 10.

Ibid, 11.

Ibid, 12.

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1998), 15.

Ibid, 16.

Ibid.

McGrath’s story is shared in numerous YouTube’s, some in dialogue with Richard Dawkins; C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. The Shape of My Early Life (Harcourt: London et al, 1955).

Cf. Professor NT Wright’s February 2012 paper at the Conference of Italian Bishops in Rome with the title Jesus, Our Contemporary when he states: “The question ‘But did it happen?’ was the question asked by the Enlightenment, not only about the resurrection but about a great deal besides. Some devout Christians have shied away from this question, believing with Proverbs 26.4 that if you answer a fool according to his folly you will be a fool yourself. In this instance, I have taken the opposite view, based on Proverbs 26.5, that you must answer the fool according to his folly, otherwise he will be wise in his own eyes. It remains enormously important that we investigate the historical origins of Christianity”.

Richard Bauckham is also right however that such evidence is not necessarily more “objective”, given the extraordinary nature of the Easter events. I deal with the interesting Holocaust/ Auschwitz/ Easter testimonies in Bauckham’s work later.

See for instance Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity. How The Jesus Movement Became The World’s Largest Religion (Harper One: New York, 2011), 54-59; and also the classic F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

Lüdemann used to hold the view that the five hundred brethren was an interpolation from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts. In April 2010 at the Resurrection of the Dead conference in Louvain-le-Neuve, Belgium, he renounced the theory. Cf. http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/raisanen-lehtipuu-and-luedemann-on.html (28/03/2012).

Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 37.

Barnett is of the opinion that Luke was in Rome in AD 64 while Paul was imprisoned awaiting execution (2 Tim 4:11). “Of particular importance here are Paul’s request to Timothy in Ephesus. He asked Timothy to bring Mark to Rome ... and with him ‘the scrolls’ and ‘the parchments’”. Barnett believes the latter not to be for Paul (since he faced death), which means that Paul was securing these for Luke in Rome (cf. 2 Tim 4:11) (Barnett, Historical Christ, 114).

Ibid, 111.

Contra Eusebius’ prejudiced jibe, see Kürzinger in Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 25 n 52. It is reasonable to suggest that Eusebius’ distrust of Papias’ intellectual capabilities could actually add credibility to the testimony he discusses.

Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 14. Unfortunately, we have only fragments of this important work.

My emphasis, from Eusebius, The History of the Church, 3.39.3-4, in Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 15-16.

There are legendary elements in this letter, including movements beyond New Testament descriptions of the future resurrection, but Wright maintains that the hope of a future bodily resurrection remains evident in it (Ibid, 486-488).

I do not discuss Mark here, though the view is generally held that it was the first written Gospel.

The context was that of a Talmudic discussion on the meaning of life [during which] the academies of Hillel and Shamai agreed after a two-and-a-half-year debate that ‘It were better to offer thanks for what existence one has not been made to suffer than to offer thanks for one’s existence when one addresses The Cause and Master of All Existence (M Herbert Danzger, Returning to Tradition. Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism [Yale University: Yale, 1989], 291.)

For an “eyewitness” account of Lüdemann’s paper see http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/raisanen-lehtipuu-and-luedemann-on.html (28/03/2012).

Bauckham says it like this: “... personal names are usually the least well remembered feature of remembered events” (Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 46).

Ibid, 41 n 4.

Ibid, 39-66.

I attended one of these presentations at Tyndale House in early 2011. Pete gave it again at the following venue and occasion: Dr Peter Williams, public lecture at the Lanier Library Lecture Series entitled: “New Evidences the Gospels were based on Eyewitness Accounts”, 5 March 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8

Markus Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Ashgate: Farnham, 2010). See my review in the British journal Theology (March/April 2012, Vol 115 No. 2, 123-124).

Jeffrey W. Hargis, Against the Christians. The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic (Lang Patristic Studies: New York, 1999) 19-20.

Hoffmann, 1987, 67-69 in Wright, Resurrection, 521.

Hoffmann, 1987, 110 in Wright, Resurrection, 522-523.

One need not agree with Origen on everything. His theory that the devil might in the end be saved was later condemned by Augustine and in AD 543 condemned by the Council of Constantinople.

Although I have not quoted from him directly, some of the eight pieces of evidence discussed here are aptly discussed by Dr Tim Keller in his 24 February 2011 talk to promote his book King’s Cross: The Story of the World in the Life of Jesus (Penguin Books: London, 2011), www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6nxkhbbF8&feature=related Personally, I would encourage skeptics to listen to this YouTube message. Dr Keller’s discussion about myths and how C.S. Lewis became a Christian is special!

Latest Publications

Frederik S. Mulder, "The Reception of Paul's Understanding of Resurrection and Eschatology in the Epistle to Rheginos: Faithful Paulinism, or Further Development?" in eds. Dan Batovici and Kristin de Troyer, Authoritative Texts and Reception History. Aspects and Approaches (Leuven: Brill, 2016), pp. 199-215 http://www.brill.com/products/book/authoritative-texts-and-reception-history

About Me

I am Frederik Mulder and teaches theology and biblical studies at Winchester University since September 2016. I have a PhD in New Testament and Reception History from Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (April 2015). My supervisor was Jan van der Watt, and external examiners Ulrich Busse and Hennie Stander. I also hold an MA in Biblical Studies from Durham University with a mini dissertation on the reception of the resurrection in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Marcion. My supervisor was Francis Watson.

Before moving to the UK in 2007, I acquired an MTh in New Testament from Pretoria University, South Africa, in 2006, where I also completed my BTh in 2004.